DNA collection are, does it violate rights?
Options
Grimmerick
Posts: 3,331 Member
Heya guys saw this subject on the news this morning and immediately thought about you guys.
The ACLU brought suit, challenging the warrantless collection and search of DNA from mere arrestees as violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected the challenge, finding the warrantless search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The ACLU asked the entire Ninth Circuit to rehear the case, and we're supporting their cause with an amicus brief (pdf) of our own.
As we explain in our brief, a blanket, suspicionless collection of DNA for the sole purpose of law enforcement investigation cannot survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny. As DNA collection becomes cheaper, it also becomes more widespread. The collection of DNA from individuals in the criminal justice system exemplifies this risk. When the federal DNA Act that Prop 69 is modeled after was first enacted, it required DNA collection from individuals convicted of violent crimes. It was then expanded to include individuals convicted of any felony, violent or not, and now requires DNA collection from any individual merely arrested (not convicted) of a crime. California law has followed the same expansive course. And because a person who is not yet convicted of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty, Prop 69 essentially collects DNA from innocent people. The only way to avoid this slippery slope towards a future where everyone's DNA is collected by the government is by having courts insist on Fourth Amendment protection for DNA, and authorizing its collection only with a search warrant. As Chief Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit has previously written (PDF) regarding warrantless DNA collection, “the time to put the cork back in the brass bottle is now—before the genie escapes.”
This is the site this snippet is from:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Forced_Warrantless_DNA_Collection_Violates_Fourth_Amendment_/18568/0/0/0/Y/M.html
So what do you think? Pros/Cons? of course there are pros and cons to everything. Are you for or against?
What about cold cases, won't that limit their ability to solve these?
The ACLU brought suit, challenging the warrantless collection and search of DNA from mere arrestees as violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected the challenge, finding the warrantless search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The ACLU asked the entire Ninth Circuit to rehear the case, and we're supporting their cause with an amicus brief (pdf) of our own.
As we explain in our brief, a blanket, suspicionless collection of DNA for the sole purpose of law enforcement investigation cannot survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny. As DNA collection becomes cheaper, it also becomes more widespread. The collection of DNA from individuals in the criminal justice system exemplifies this risk. When the federal DNA Act that Prop 69 is modeled after was first enacted, it required DNA collection from individuals convicted of violent crimes. It was then expanded to include individuals convicted of any felony, violent or not, and now requires DNA collection from any individual merely arrested (not convicted) of a crime. California law has followed the same expansive course. And because a person who is not yet convicted of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty, Prop 69 essentially collects DNA from innocent people. The only way to avoid this slippery slope towards a future where everyone's DNA is collected by the government is by having courts insist on Fourth Amendment protection for DNA, and authorizing its collection only with a search warrant. As Chief Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit has previously written (PDF) regarding warrantless DNA collection, “the time to put the cork back in the brass bottle is now—before the genie escapes.”
This is the site this snippet is from:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Forced_Warrantless_DNA_Collection_Violates_Fourth_Amendment_/18568/0/0/0/Y/M.html
So what do you think? Pros/Cons? of course there are pros and cons to everything. Are you for or against?
What about cold cases, won't that limit their ability to solve these?
0
Replies
-
No takers?0
-
I'm in.
Very tricky thing. This is one of those cases where the science is light years ahead of us being able to figure out how best to deal with it.
Because you can make all the laws against DNA collection you would like. But it's just too easy and keeps getting easier. I leave some DNA on every cigarette butt I toss out. Should I expect a right to privacy with my own garbage? Some skin shavings, a hair, that's all it takes. We accidentally leave our DNA everywhere, so I have no idea how we can go about protecting it.0 -
I'm in.
Very tricky thing. This is one of those cases where the science is light years ahead of us being able to figure out how best to deal with it.
Because you can make all the laws against DNA collection you would like. But it's just too easy and keeps getting easier. I leave some DNA on every cigarette butt I toss out. Should I expect a right to privacy with my own garbage? Some skin shavings, a hair, that's all it takes. We accidentally leave our DNA everywhere, so I have no idea how we can go about protecting it.
This is true but I don't think that's what you are protecting. We do leave our DNA everywhere but if you aren't already in the system, there is nothing to compare it to. What the issue is is taking DNA to put you in the system - is that protected? I would say yes, it would be something that one would need a reasonable suspicion or warrant to obtain. You can't just go around forcing everyone to give DNA to get you in the system. Just because you lose a piece of hair somewhere, that's not a controlled way to attach your DNA to that piece of hair. However, if you are arrested, I don't see why they can't get you there. They can drug test you if need be.
I guess I am for having everyone have their DNA on file. If you don't do anything wrong there likely isn't going to be a whole lot of issue with it.0 -
There have been cases where prisoners that are now required to give their DNA have been linked to cold cases from many years ago. Had they been required to give DNA at any point in their life prior, the case wouldn't be "cold". That would definitely be a pro, but that is prisoners (convicted felons) not people arrested without being found guilty of anything, or presumed innocent until found guilty.0
-
I think if you have been convicted of any crime, your DNA should go in the system. If you are suspected of a crime I think a warrant can be issued for your DNA to rule you out. If you are innocent you shouldn't have a problem with that.0
-
If you are innocent you shouldn't have a problem with that.
Not relating specifically to DNA but this is an argument I've always had a problem with. It's common and often brought up when talking about privacy rights, searches, seizures, etc.
This argument can be and has been used to defend all sorts of unfair treatment. Law officers barging into homes and rooting through people's belongings. "What you got something to hide?"
What we have is a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's important for everyone.
Because our right to privacy has been so reduced in this country many employees are now forced to once a month be randomly tested for drugs. Not a bad idea you might think, there are many reasons to support it. But 30 years ago you couldn't imagine a world where companies randomly select employees and then examine their urine. Some companies to prevent cheating have rules about making sure you are watched while you pee.
How did we get here? What are things going to look like 20 years down the road?
As the technology improves medical tests will be able to reveal all sorts of things about us. Will insurers be able to deny coverage based on the chance of contracting something in the future, will employers be able to disriminate against our genes?
It's not just about being "innocent". It's about not being treated like a lab rat just because you want a job. Not being punished for something found in your DNA that you have no control over in the first place.
...now how to get off this soapbox without hurting myself...0 -
Not relating specifically to DNA but this is an argument I've always had a problem with. It's common and often brought up when talking about privacy rights, searches, seizures, etc.
This argument can be and has been used to defend all sorts of unfair treatment. Law officers barging into homes and rooting through people's belongings. "What you got something to hide?"
What we have is a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's important for everyone.
Because our right to privacy has been so reduced in this country many employees are now forced to once a month be randomly tested for drugs. Not a bad idea you might think, there are many reasons to support it. But 30 years ago you couldn't imagine a world where companies randomly select employees and then examine their urine. Some companies to prevent cheating have rules about making sure you are watched while you pee.
How did we get here? What are things going to look like 20 years down the road?
As the technology improves medical tests will be able to reveal all sorts of things about us. Will insurers be able to deny coverage based on the chance of contracting something in the future, will employers be able to disriminate against our genes?
It's not just about being "innocent". It's about not being treated like a lab rat just because you want a job. Not being punished for something found in your DNA that you have no control over in the first place.
...now how to get off this soapbox without hurting myself...
If violating some stoner's rights keeps him from causing one accident on the highway, I don't have a problem with it.
I work in a Foundry and if a drug test keeps some guy from spilling molten steel on his co-workers, I don't have a problem with that either.
I'll be 58 this year an I have never lost a job because of a drug test. I've never been swabbed for DNA to be cleared of a crime. Sure, these things may be inconvenient, but if you haven't committed a crime, a DNA test will be to your benefit if you're a suspect. I'm not really that concerned about the rights of the guilty.0 -
If violating some stoner's rights keeps him from causing one accident on the highway, I don't have a problem with it.
I work in a Foundry and if a drug test keeps some guy from spilling molten steel on his co-workers, I don't have a problem with that either.
I've taken my share of drug tests, in and out of the military, and also never failed one.
Should we have random blood alcohol test for everyone on the road? Or when you get to the office? I don't know if you may have had too much to drink, and could pose a threat to me.
How about random inspections of people's homes? Are you mentally stable enough to have "dangerous" items in your house?
At what point do your personal rights to privacy become more important than the potential perceived harm you could do to someone else?0 -
^Thank you.
Just take 5 seconds to think about all the things we could do to prevent "even one accident."
I know a few motorcycle riders who've been responsible for some accidents. So why don't we get rid of those? I've never had one, I don't care about the rights of motorcyclists. If it prevents even one accident I guess it's worth it.
You wanna walk around in leather jackets? Well hell sounds like a suspicious character to me. The police will swing by this afternoon for a top to bottom search of your premises. Not just a quick look around, no they're going to rip the sheets off your bed and cut open your mattress. After all they need to be sure you have nothing to hide...0
This discussion has been closed.